42 comments:

Question: you say states must legislate on legitimate objects of government. (Obviously I agree). I've always considered what we call traditional marriage to be just such a thing. But if we divorce marriage from its procreative context, what legitimate object of government does marriage pursue? Should the state be legislating on the basis of anything as ephemeral as the human heart?

@Royal T No, I concede the case law is against me on the Guaranty Clause but give an opinion about what I think *should* have happened. On the morality as a legitimate interest point, I am only saying what is in the case. I never expressed an opinion about what I thought the answer *should* be. Why the difference? Mainly, I was trying to be clear and not too expansive. That's hard to do without dominating the conversation. Also, I had an echo in my ear the whole time I was speaking, so I'm surprised it came out at all coherent.

I agree Ann, if the only decision was landmark status, the decision of the NYC board should not be effectied by option vs. ownership. But if it was more than that, say tearing down the building, then Byron is probably correct. A false statement from the promoters may give the board the ability to back out of any decision (particularly if it starts looking politically controversial).

the bloggingheads videos with you on the left are always so boring ... no fun conflict/disagreement. what's the point of that ?

also, I disagreed w/ your view that Michelle wanted a more meaty policy role in the white house. honestly, i think she does mostly what she wants.... i dont think she has been repackaged. i do think they tried to highlight the side of her that is 'mom in chief' ... i bet the otherside of Michelle is sort of that cool girlfriend. I dont think she has political aspirations like hillary did.

Good Bloggingheads. I enjoyed York's style of interrogation as he waded through distracting legal dilemmas down to the bottom line political issue surrounding Prop 8's death for being "illegitimate" government of, by and for the people.

Your explanation of rational basis was excellent, very clear.This brought to my mind a question as to who writes about the meat of US Law in layman's language, but not just as a primer. Something like Sagan, Asimov, and Friedman have done in their fields.

America's Pile-o-crap - you need to learn English. Trust me on this. Based on your lack of an article before the word "blogosphere", I assume you are from Asia. Please let us know where you are from, and why you think you are America's anything. You are, in fact, a communist stooge.

Interesting diavlog. I especially learned from the segment about Michelle Obama. What I think, though, is that Hillary got more and more popular because she deviated from the First Lady stereotype, and Michelle vacationing in Spain, even if at a 5-star resort, is not a big deal for dignitaries, better be safe than sorry, and the prices in Spain must be reasonable considering their economy. Michelle being in Spain sends a global signal of international inclusivity, at a time when America is sometimes regarded as insular.

Ann, You seem to assume that if we didn't like Michelle Obama 1.0, its because we don't like our first ladies to be 'powerful women'. I think Michelle 1.0's problem is not that she is a strong woman, but that she is a strident and yes, bitter woman. She has had many great opportunities in her life, but is filled with complaints about it and seems to feel somehow cheated.

You feel she failed as Michelle 2.0 because she was forced into too feminized a role which 'chaffed' her. The problem with Michelle 2.0 (IMO) is that she was sold to us as something she was clearly NOT, and we could see that with our own eyes. She is NOT a fashion icon (she doesn't have the figure or the fashion sense for it). And she is not the 'gracious lady'. This just doesn't work for her. She had to be complicent in this strategy, and it just doesn't work.

Also, the constant lecturing us about eating right and being charitable - people don't like to be lectured, and this feeds into our feeling that she is a harsh person.

Also about the lecturing - she doesn't appear (publically anyway) to have great eating habits herself. Also, when she and her husband where making an AGI of $200K - $250K/yr, they hardly gave any money to charity. So, in my view, and in many others, her lecturing is tiresome and hypocritical.

Also, I didn't get the sense that the Prop 8 defense rested on the immorality of homosexuality or homosexual marriage. It rested on the superiority of opposite sex marriage making it worthy of state support.

For example, walking in the woods is considered superior to drinking in bars (as forms of rec) so the state subsidizes one and disfavors the other with regs and taxes.

Also no one made the fertility argument. I know other cases have disfavored that argument but that was before we recognized the population bust and the Muslim hordes problems.

The law against murder punishes malum in se, but the injury to others is there in addition to our moral disapproval of it (which is itself based on the injury to others). The problem I'm talking about arises when the ONLY basis for the law is to express moral disapproval. (I'm just tracking the opinion in Lawrence here, not saying I agree that morality alone is a legitimate basis for a law).

You were both doing fine until you got to Dr. Laura. You, Ann, were even impressive in describing why one might listen to, or call, her ("We might need that") but you totally lost me - in a giggling fit - as you imploringly wondered aloud "Why would she - why would anybody want to say the whole word?!? "

Damn, Woman, ain't you an American? I mean, I can't really identify with you and Byron York, but I'm trying. Can't you try to see my friends and I use the whole word and don't appreciate being told what we can do with our own damn mouths - because you're not suggesting what we can't say in polite company or implying to even treat us like smokers with designated areas for our comfort but (and this is the juicy part) assuming you can establish white control over us for ever - As the Buddhists like to ask, "What are you afraid of?"

I'm afraid you're establishing a double standard which is wrong. It's racially discriminatory (against whites and blacks for different reasons) it's stupid and it's going to backfire. Coming from a culture that loves to play with words and ideas hard enough to establish cultural currents (Police=Pigs=5-0=The Po-Po's, etc.) I think there's something book-burningly fascistic about attempting to rid the world of words you don't like. Words don't live or die that way. You know that. And why do you want to mess with the black and white Americans who are most comfortable with each other - not in avoidance - but in a manner that maturely speaks to the ultimate acceptance of the foolish nature of our shared history, and not altogether negatively either, because, all in all, good ol' enlightened us got the spoils of all their efforts, no matter which side they were on? We're Americans. You're implying there's something wrong with us - the real us - as Obama does. Coupled with the claim you want an honest dialogue. I don't see how the establishment of this particular rule somehow turns you into Fred Friendly on one of those old PBS roundtables. When you, too, want everybody tip-toeing around what we can say, just like in slavery days, when we're already doing fine without you. We're Americans. We listen to what somebody says, not how they say it.

There's just too many frames of reference in this country for this "I'm so offended" nonsense.